Page:The Newspaper and the Historian.djvu/328

 with which he had been connected with regard to his manner of dealing with the political and social questions of the day.

G. C. Brodrick who wrote leaders in the London Times from 1860 to 1873 says, "One misgiving which haunted me at the outset proved entirely delusive. It was the fear that I should be expected to write strictly to order, and to advocate views opposed to my own convictions." But he found that if asked to write something he could not approve, another subject was promptly substituted by Delane.

Differences of opinion in 1916 between the New Republic and its financial supporters in regard to candidates for the presidency led to an open letter from its chief financial supporter stating that its owners exercised no supervision over the editorial columns of the paper. The recent transfer of ownership of the New York Evening Post was accompanied by a statement that the transfer would not affect in any way the editorial policy of the paper.

The question in its entirety is closely allied to the fundamental problem of whether an editor should write at all or not,—a question to which E. T. Cook says "high authority, and probably the more general practice, are in favor of [giving] the negative answer." But assuming that most editors do write, it leads to the question as to how far voluntarily and consciously the editor places his pen at the service of his employers, how far the theory prevails and is upheld "that the function of a political journalist resembles that of a barrister; the hired pleader paid to make the best of a case, good or bad; bound to his brief, and in no way held to compromise his honour by subordinating private opinions of his own."